INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by:

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Steve Roberson

Review commenced at: 12:00 PM (Time), 03/14/2003 File #: 95-246669 Laboratory #{s): 11201050 20216008 Examuiner(s} & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ XO ao UL - XO ‘oO Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Testimony Date(s): Pages: Laboratory Reports):

Laboratory Number: ~ 11201050 Date:

Laboratory Number: 20216008 Date:

Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ

Laboratory Number: 11201050 20216008 Page ] of 4 Initials: ME

(Date)

Reviewed Not Reviewed oO 5 Oo G Oo Q

Jan 8, 1982

Feb 25, 1982

CRM - 3762

Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes oO No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting apency letters (dated 11-16-8) and 2-8-82)

Results of Review

File #: 95-246669 item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q6-Q8, K1, K2

Review of Laboratory Report(s} and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

addjtional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s}? O Yes ONo XO Unable to Detennine

2} Are the examination results set forth in the Jaboratory repari{s) suppored and adequately documented in

the bench notes? OD Yes XONog CO Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

XO Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? O¥Yes GNe OO Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? Q¥es ONo O Unable to Detennine

5} Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes ONo O Unable to Determine

Pape 2 of 3

Initials: Sy C

Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additiona]) Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-246669

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way (o determine the comparison

was performed correctly.

#2: The examination resuits set forth in the laboratory repor are supported by the bench notes, but the documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses

abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret.

Review completed at: 12:15 PM (Time), 03/14/2001 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (10 nearest 1/4 hour): 0:35 hours

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review

are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 papes. j - aif iv ae C othe / C Mafo— 03/14/2001 (Signature) (Date)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: By LL.